Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] is one of my dearest friends. I am sure he is absolutely accurate. The Committee on Rules probably did not accept his amendment but it has been voted for on the floor. It may have been they gave Mr. Michel precedence over your request 2 years ago. It was Mr. Michel who made the amendment on the floor.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment in cooperation with my colleagues, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett]. This language has attracted strong bipartisan support in the past and we hope that it will continue today. Mr. Chairman, the title of H.R. 2 says the bill's purpose is, ``to give the President item veto authority over appropriations and targeted tax benefits in revenue Acts,'' but if we examine the statement more deeply we discover it is only half true. The legislation does extend the President's authority over appropriations quite dramatically. The second half of the stated goal is not fulfilled. The definition of a targeted tax benefit in H.R. 2 is extremely narrow and arbitrary, and as a rule the President is unable to rescind special tax loopholes that are hidden in revenue bills. I have concerns about the potential I see in H.R. 2 to upset the careful balance of power established by the authors of the Constitution. I also have doubts about the implicit assumption that the President is necessarily tougher on the deficit than Congress. In the last 20 years Congress has approved $92 billion in rescissions, $20 billion more in cuts than the President has requested in the course of those two decades. But if the majority party in committed to shifting this power to the executive branch, then I would at least urge that we put everything on the table, both appropriations and tax loopholes. As introduced, H.R. 2 only allowed the President to use the veto on tax provisions that benefited five or fewer taxpayers. By voice vote, the committee increased this threshold to 100 people or companies. But whether the number is 5 or 100, however, it does not go far enough. The legislation still protects tax breaks which pander to special interests and add billions of dollars to our budget deficit. We have all seen the lobbyists lingering in ``Gucci Gulch,'' the famous corridor outside the Ways and Means hearing room. Their sole purpose is to secure sweetheart deals for their wealthy clients. The Slaughter-Barrett amendment recognizes that any Washington tax attorney worth his salary could get around the ``100 or fewer taxpayers'' provision. As spending caps get tighter, inserting special tax breaks will be the only way Members can take home the bacon. Every forward- looking lobbyist knows that tax breaks are the future of pork. Simply stated, our amendment ensures that the President can rescind any tax benefit which gives special treatment to a group of taxpayers. I cannot claim, Mr. Chairman, to be the first office holder to spot this disparity, nor the first to support a broader definition of tax benefits as the solution. In fact, the Slaughter-Barrett conservative circles. Republicans have offered the exact same language not once, not twice, but three times. We hope that Republicans and Democrats alike will again support it. Our definition of ``targeted tax benefit'' was first offered on the floor of the House by former minority leader Bob Michel in April 1993, when he offered a friendly amendment to the Solomon-Castle substitute to H.R. 1578. This amendment passed by a vote of 257 to 157, on an extremely broad bipartisan basis. I would like to emphasize again that our language is exactly the same as Mr. Michel's, word for word. This year, our precise definition is found again in S. 14, the line- item veto bill introduced by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, word for word. More significant, Republicans continued to think that this broad definition of ``tax benefit'' was a good idea, because they included it in the Contract With America. In the best-selling version of the contract that you can find in bookstores today, right on top of page 33, our distinguished Speaker and majority leader explain that a targeted tax benefit is ``a provision that provides special treatment to a particular taxpayer or limited class of taxpayers.'' That language is found here in our amendment, but not in the bill. When the Republican Conference released the legislative language for the contract, the line-item veto bill again included language identical to the Slaughter-Barrett amendment--word for word. But when the bill was introduced, this broad definition was gone--replaced by the ``five or fewer taxpayers'' wording. Our amendment also has the support of the Concord Coalition, certainly a leader in efforts to reduce the deficit. In a letter to me written yesterday, the coalition's executive director wrote: Many tax provisions function as back-door entitlements and confer substantial economic benefits to upper income individuals and special interests. If Congress passes legislation that creates new tax entitlements or expands existing ones, the President should have the opportunity to veto them.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, the line-item veto aims to extract pork from legislation passed by Congress. This amendment recognizes that tax pork is every bit as insidious as spending pork. So I urge my colleagues to practice some truth in advertising. When the reading clerk stood up on the House floor earlier to designate this bill, he said: A bill to give the President item veto authority over appropriation acts and targeted tax benefits in revenue acts. We do not want a half-truth right in the title of this bill. If our goal is truly to continue the progress we've made in cutting our budget deficit, then we must scrutinize both spending and taxes. If they are serious about cutting the pork, then both sides of the aisle will vote for this amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I wish I had the eloquence and the power to try to reach out to the Members of this House today and give some idea of the depth of harm we are doing. But I know that the die is cast on this bill and that my words would just go into the Record and be forever lost. The Delegate from the District of Columbia was right, we had a lengthy debate on this issue in the committee, and I think frankly it is one of the best that I have ever heard. I suppose those of us who stand up on the floor from day to day and try to talk about the Constitution, the separation of powers, must sound quaint and even old fashioned because I know that the new day has dawned and the thing they are going to do is to keep their word with the contract. The question that keeps plaguing me is: What possible reason does anyone have to believe that a President of the United States is going to be infallible, benign, upright, and totally altruistic? As a matter of fact, when someone said awhile ago we did not want to raise the judiciary above the other branches, what we are doing is raising the executive above all other branches, and, as someone said again this morning, that we are giving the ultimate weapon to the executive. When our Founding Fathers decided the best way to keep politics out of government was to have three equal branches of government, they knew what they were doing. If we do not believe in checks and balances anymore, then let us go headlong into this business of simply giving to someone at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the right to decide whatever is going to happen in the Congress of the United States. I have talked to some of the Members whose States have line-item vetoes, and in many cases it amounts to little more than an opportunity for blackmail. One Member told me in his State every member puts in everything in the world in the bills that anybody asks them to knowing they will get about a third of it, and they say, ``The Governor killed it,'' and the Governor can also say, ``If you want that water project in your district, son, you better support me for reelection.'' There is no protection from that and no reason for us to believe that what we are handing over today, would not be a weapon that could be used in a political way. The only protection we have is what we have now, and this is a strong three-part government that we are quickly dismantling. I do want to make a plea for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] that the courts are different. We are not talking about the bricks and mortar. It is not the buildings that we are so concerned about, and Lord knows we are going to keep costs down, and we have done that; that is our job here. We are talking about their freedom to make the best judicial decision they can make unfettered by pressure. Why in the world would we go back to the days that many of us lived through in the Watergate era when a President of the United States did everything he could to influence the courts? But thank G-d for the Constitution of the United States that he was unable to do it. Surely, as we rush to dismantle the Constitution and the government that has been the envy of the world and that has stood us in such good stead for over 200 years, we can at least make some sense out of what we are doing today, and, if we think, and many Members in this House think, that they do not have the brains, or the will, or the backbone, or the gumption, or the honesty, or even the decency to do the right thing, and they have got to let the President do it for them, at least let us do what has been suggested before. Let us speak for the branch that cannot speak for itself. Let us not destroy the judiciary of the United States which has made sure over the years that we have maintained who we are and maintained what we are.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is certainly one of the most thoughtful Members of this House and a good friend of mine. I should say to him that I did not do a lot of research on this. I took the words directly out of the Contract With America, I assumed that after Mr. Michel had done his consultation with Mr. Rostenkowski and come up with what is language is that what----

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, my microphone was not on. As I heard the gentleman's remarks, that after Mr. Michel spoke on the floor on the amendment, he decided it was too broad and conferred with Mr. Rosteknowski to come up with what was determined to be the proper language, which is what we have now.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute Julie and Alan Parlato from Rochester, NY for their accredited service in the U.S. Air Force on the occasion of their retirement at the Offutt AFB on November 18, 1994. In SMSgt. Alan A. Parlato's 24 years in the Air Force he earned a SAC master technician patch and a SAC master aircraft and munitions maintenance badge. His decorations and awards include the Meritorious Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters, Air Force Commendation Medal with one oak leaf cluster, Air Force Achievement Medal, Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with one oak leaf cluster, Air Force Organizational Excellence Award with one oak leaf cluster, Air Force Good Conduct Medal with seven oak leaf clusters, National Defense Service Medal with bronze star, Air Force Overseas Long Tour Ribbon with one oak leaf cluster, Air Force Longevity Service Award with five oak leaf clusters, NCO PME Graduation Ribbon with one oak leaf cluster, Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon, and the Air Force training ribbon. He enlisted in the Air Force in 1971 as a grand radio repairman and left as a maintenance operations superintendent and logistics group resource advisor. In Master Sergeant Julie A. Parlato's 20 years in the Air Force her decorations and awards include the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Air Force Commendation Medal with three oak leaf clusters, Air Force Outstanding Unit Award, Air Force Organizational Excellence Award, Combat Readiness Medal, Air Force Overseas Long Tour Ribbon, Air Force Longevity Service Award with four oak leaf clusters, NCO PME Graduation Ribbon with one oak leaf cluster, and the Air Force Training Ribbon. She enlisted in the Air Force in 1974 as a plumber, retrained first as a teletype operator and later to go into the training career field. She left as chief, education and training section responsible for developing and evaluating unit training programs. Alan A. Parlato and the former Julia A. Reitano met in 1969 and were married in August 1971 in Rochester, NY. They have one son, Christopher, a daughter-in-law, Heather, and two grandsons, Zakk and Storm. Alan's proud parents are Russell and June Parlato of Irondequoit, NY. Julia's equally proud parents are Joe and Theresa Reitano of Greece, NY. Mr. Speaker, please join me and their family in thanking the Parlato family for their allegiance to and brave service for our Nation.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. If the State says, ``I don't want to cooperate with you and this river that runs between my border and yours and I am going to pollute my side and I am sorry about that.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER. The point I am trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is, what in the world would be the point of passing one if everybody could opt out of it?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] has already made a very compelling argument about the crime that is committee against a victim twice by allowing the perpetrator to have an edge in court. I would like to speak about the personal side. First, I am not trying to stall this bill. I know it is going to pass. The votes are there, but I do not want it to pass until I have a chance to speak for the victims of rape, or children, and women. The national statistics show us that rapists are 10 times more likely to repeat their crimes than any other offender. The American people have felt outrage, and expressed it many times, over sensational cases where the sexual predators were released in their communities and neither the police nor the community knew they were there. Polly Klaas in California and Megan Kanka in New Jersey are two recent examples of young children allegedly abused and murdered by released sex offenders. In my home town of Rochester, NY, Arthur Shawcross went on a rampage of serial rape and murder while he was on parole for having murdered two young children. Mr. Chairman, the parole board in the State of New York lost track of Mr. Shawcross, and not even the police investigating his crimes knew about his past or where he was. Communities across the Nation have similar horror stories. Last year this database on sexual predators was passed with heavy support on both sides of the aisle. Senator Feinstein introduced the bill in the Senate where it passed.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, why do we want to collect this information nationally? We know a lot of things about sexual predators. One thing is that we cannot treat them as other criminals, that they are very apt to be repeat offenders. We know they cross State lines. We had the full support of all the police agencies in the country. They feel in the cases of Polly Klaas and Megan Kanka that had they had prior record information at their fingertips, they might have been able to save Polly Klaas who was alive when the police stopped the car she was allegedly in. One of the things I would like to say to the people of the country is when we talk about the unfunded mandate it is as though they were a four-letter swear word. Unfunded mandates has a ring to it of something almost repugnant. In truth this bill really says that the Federal Government cannot pass any legislation if we are not going to give all the money the legislation requires; that States and local governments will no longer be required to make any contribution of their own. That means we could no longer pass bills as we have over the history of the United States such as mine safety. There we said that the people who go down in the coal mines of the United States, the most dangerous job, to meet our energy requirements, they should be able to be safe in that work and certain conditions had to be met so that their lives were more likely to be kept out of danger. We did the same thing with child labor laws, when we said OK, maybe little fingers are wonderful in the textile mills and to clean out the machines, but American children should not be exposed to that kind of hazard. And we said the same thing about children in the coal mines. The same thing happened when we said American children are all going to be educated. These are all called unfunded mandates; as are airline safety, highway safety, and clean water. We are going to have to reauthorize clean water. It is going to come under this law after it is passed. What we are saying is if the Federal Government does not spend enough money to provide clean water for every family in the United States, that bill's requirements will be repealed or action will be optional. So you may have clean water if you want to in Virginia, but you do not have to have it in Alabama. Is that what people in the country are looking for with the unfunded mandates? Do they want to let sexual predators go? Do they want to let the polluters go ahead and pollute? We must not lose this opportunity to do everything we can to stop that menace, that horror, of sexual predators preying on the children of the United States. I would venture that there is not a single district represented in Congress that has not had a case where someone has come in from across the State line or someone has been released with a prior record as long as your arm, and yet unless we act other people will be victimized either with rape or with death. Do we have to learn this lesson over and over again? In this day of communications is it too much to ask that State and local governments help to provide this information, and, yes, help to pay for it? Because, believe me, in the long haul, if you really want to bring this down to dollars and cents and not to human dignity and lives, if you want to just put it down to dollars, it is obviously going to be cheaper for us to prevent these kinds of things than to go through the costs of the court cases and trials we will have to suffer. Let me close with one example where this could have made an incredible difference. Two years ago investigators in the State of Virginia were puzzled because there was a maintenance man on the loose who raped 18 women, all with the same modus operandi. He got access to the apartments by claiming to be a repairman Tragically, that man, Eugene Dozier, had already been convicted for a string of rapes in New York State in which he used the very same tactics, and he was released from prison in New York and moved right down into Northern Virginia. If we had had the nationwide data base, law enforcement in Northern Virginia could have gone right to his door. What kind of a thing is it that we are saying is too much? What is it that makes that so expensive that we cannot continue to do that so we can try to keep people safe? Well, I am sure that anybody in this country who has been victimized or lost someone would tell you that it is not too much. And when we talk of unfunded mandates, we have got to remember that what we are doing is providing for the health and the safety and, yes, indeed, saving the lives of many of our people. I urge that this be exempted from the unfunded mandate bill.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Did I hear the gentleman say that if this bill passes, that we could still go ahead and pass unfunded mandates?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Does the bill not say that if we do pass an unfunded mandate, it is optional?

Mrs. SLAUGHTER

Mrs. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this year 117 Compeer programs across the Nation will celebrate Compeer Friendship Week from April 23 to April 29, 1995. The goal of Compeer Friendship Week is to provide an opportunity for each Compeer program to increase its name recognition, gain community support and recruit volunteers. Compeer programs will be hosting many special events during this week. The Compeer Program, which originated in my home district of Rochester, NY, is now in its 22nd year of existence in Rochester, and its 12th year nationwide. Begun as an adopt-a-patient program at the Rochester Psychiatric Center in 1973, Compeer matches caring, sensitive and trained volunteers to those who are isolated, lonely or persons who, because of a mental illness, experience difficulty in coping. Compeer is based on the concept that, through the sharing of friendship, volunteers can offset the sometimes systematized isolation and loneliness of those diagnosed with mental illnesses, and relieve families of their continuous focus on care. In the past, persons with a mental illness have been discharged into communities where, in theory, they would lead richer, more productive lives than they would in institutions. The reality proves otherwise. People who suffer from illness, who are living both in and out of hospitals, suffer from isolation and loneliness. The majority lack a support system of either friends or family. Compeer has helped to change this. A unique partnership between volunteer, client, therapist and Compeer staff has enabled hundreds to become fully integrated into society as mentally and emotionally healthy individuals. In an era of health care cost containment, decreased funding for mental illness, skyrocketing costs of psychiatric hospitalizations, and deteriorating traditional support systems, Compeer addressed a national problem by providing cost-effective utilization of volunteers as an adjunct to therapy. Compeer has made a tremendous difference in our country--fostering and nurturing new friendships, filling the gaps of loneliness, and building bridges of understanding and hope. I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating Compeer Friendship Week from April 23 to April 29, 1995, and in congratulating the volunteers, clients, therapists, and staff of Compeer for their selfless and tireless efforts.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 16-21 last week, and for rollcall votes 25-27 this evening. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 16, 19, 25, 26, and 27, and ``nay'' on rollcall votes 17, 18, 20, and 21.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. admired by the minority than the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger]. We know him to be fair. We hold him in high esteem and even affection. But I would like to at least make some points that happened the other day that we think were very devastating, really, to the public's right to know. The first thing is that there really is no emergency to rush this bill through. The effective date of the bill is October 1, 1995, so regardless of our action on this request, there would be no operative effect if the bill's report were filed today or Tuesday. Frankly, this is about politics, not policy. I want to note that in their rush to bring this bill to the floor, debate was stifled so that the bill could be reported by our committee. There were several unprecedented breaches in our rights to consider legislation that occurred. For example, there were no hearings. On Tuesday, January 3, 1 day before the opening of the 104th Congress, the minority staff was informed by the majority staff that the unfunded mandates legislation would be considered on Tuesday, January 10, on the same day as the organizational meeting of the committee. The following day, January 4, ranking member, Cardiss Collins met with Chairman Clinger and gave him a letter requesting public hearings and sufficient time to review the legislation. On Friday, January 6, Chairman Clinger refused the request. The fact that two hearings were held on the subject of unfunded mandates in the last Congress is irrelevant. The bill that was introduced on January 4, 1995, is a new bill. It is different from any bill considered in the previous Congress. Moreover, 31 out of 51 of the members of our committee did not serve on the committee in the past Congress. The request for public hearings is not a matter of procedure alone. Key groups that are affected by mandates were not involved in the drafting process, and have had no chance to be heard in the debate. These include ordinary citizens who may benefit from clean water and air, who have children receiving special education or immunizations, or who have parents receiving social security benefits. They include workers who receive the benefits of workplace protections, and minimum wage laws. They include private companies that are concerned by the competitive disadvantage that they would face if publicly owned competitors were not required to comply with the same laws with which they comply. I would note that this timetable has seriously reduced Members' opportunity to review the bill. The ranking member and the minority staff were given a xeroxed copy of the bill from the majority staff late in the afternoon on Wednesday, January 4. The minority xeroxed further copies which were distributed to most minority Members on January 5. The actual printed version of H.R. 5 was not available until Friday, January 6. The markup was held 2 legislative days later on Tuesday, January 10. The limited time for reading the bill, receiving comments on the bill, and drafting amendments, seriously impinged upon the Members' ability to craft thoughtful amendments. I want to point out that the markup began with the acceptance of testimony of a Member of Congress who was not a member of the committee in violation of our rights. After an opening statement by the chairman and ranking member, the chairman recognized Representative Rob Portman, not a member of the committee, who was seated at the clerk's table, to make a statement concerning the bill. Minority Members made points of order contending that the Chair had no right to recognize Members who were not members of the committee to make statements. A point of order was made that the acceptance of the Portman testimony constituted a hearing that violated both committee rules and House rules. A point of order was made that the decision to accept testimony from Representative Portman denied the minority their right under rule XI, clause 2(j)(1) to call witnesses selected by the minority. Members also requested an opportunity to question Representative Portman, which was denied, despite rule XI, clause 2(j)(2) which provides an opportunity to members of the committee to ask questions under the 5-minute rule. In each case, the chair ruled against the points of order, with the justification that the Chair has the prerogative to recognize whomever he chooses. At the end of Representative Portman's testimony, he thanked the Chair for the opportunity to testify at this hearing. I would note that several rulings of the Chair impinged upon our rights to offer amendments. At the beginning of the markup, after the reading of section 1 of the bill, Representative Moran offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Discussion of the amendment began despite the fact that the amendment had not yet been read. This problem was brought to the attention of the Chair. After very limited debate, Representative Burton moved the previous question, and a point of order was raised by Representative Waxman and others that the amendment had not yet been read, and that therefore there had been no opportunity to offer amendments to the Moran amendment. The point of order was denied. Subsequently, a point of order raised after the previous question had been ordered was denied because it came too late. The Chair appeared to rule that the fact that debate had begun on the Moran amendment prior to its reading, a point of order did not lie that the amendment had not been read. There is no precedent of which we are aware for such a decision. After the amendment of Representative Moran was defeated, Representative Kanjorski was recognized. He stated that he had a substitute at the desk, and in response to questions from the Chair indicated that it was different from the Moran amendment. The Chair ruled that based upon discussions with the Parliamentarian, only one substitute could be offered during the consideration of section 1, and one substitute could be offered at the end of the bill. A point of order was made against the ruling, noting that under House rules, unlimited substitutes could be offered, assuming previous substitutes were defeated. It was denied. We subsequently were advised by the Parliamentarian that multiple substitutes were in order. In the middle of the markup, the Chair ruled that based upon advice of the Parliamentarian, the committee would not be allowed to offer amendments to sections 201 and 202, and sections 301, 302, and 303. The ruling was subsequently amended to include all of title III, and then amended again to provide committee jurisdiction over the new section 424(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as added by section 301 of H.R. 5. The ruling had the effect of permitting the committee only to consider the 1-year study commission in title I, the bill's definitions, purposes, and exclusions. The main portions of the bill which define unfunded mandates and establish a point of order against bills that fail to provide various budget analyses and an ability for agencies to ignore enforcement of unfunded mandates, as well as the provisions relating to agency regulatory analyses were placed off limits. Under the Chair's ruling, the Committees on Budget, Rules, and Judiciary, which received only a very limited sequential referral would be responsible for considering these key provisions. Under the ruling, the committee could not even consider changing the effective date contained in section 306. The Tuesday markup of H.R. 5 was the first markup of the 104th Congress, and therefore the first markup conducted by the Chair. We do not wish that these procedural concerns be considered as a personal attack on the Chair. Indeed, we do not question the Chair's personal motives. However, all of these abuses were the direct result of the apparent orders to the Chair to move the bill out of the committee at all costs. As the letter from the chairman quoted above states, because of the pledge to enact laws within 100 days, ``the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight has been asked to move this bill as quickly as possible.'' It is clear that the effort to bring the bill as quickly as possible was accomplished by trampling the Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, we in the minority do not wish to use dilatory tactics to make our points, and I will not object to the gentleman's request. What we do want is an honest debate of the issue, at which time our amendments would not be dismissed. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will not object.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a reform we did make. Two-and-a-half years ago in the wake of the problems in the bank and the post office, I served as a member of a bipartisan task force which drafted House Resolution 423, an unprecedented effort to totally eliminate politics and patronage from the administration of the House support operations. I am saddened that on this day of reform, the new majority proposes a change to go back from professional management and businesslike personnel policies to the discredited patronage system. However, that is what they are proposing and they have already started to implement it. Let me remind Members of what we have accomplished. We have created a Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services, with a mandate to sweep the House clean of waste and fraud and inefficiency. We have provided that both the majority and minority parties must agree on the selection of the director, so that only skill mattered, not politics. have already started with a totally partisan person to administer the House. We had an inspector general who was going to report to a bipartisan subcommittee. That is all gone, so there is no more oversight in a bipartisan way of the things that happen in this House. Mr. Speaker, 2\1/2\ years ago in the wake of the Sergeant-at-Arms Bank and the Post Office affairs, I served as a member of the bipartisan task force which drafted House Resolution 423, an unprecedented effort to totally eliminate politics and patronage from the administration of House support operations. I am shocked and saddened that on this day of reform, that the new majority would propose in this package of rules changes to move back from professional management and business-like personnel policies to the discredited patronage system. Yet that's what they are proposing and have already begun to implement. Mr. Speaker, let me remind you what we had accomplished. We created a Director of Non-legislative and Financial Services with the mandate to sweep the House clean of waste, fraud, and inefficiency. We provided that both the majority and minority parties must agree on the selection of the Director to ensure that only relevant experience and skills would count, not the politics of those who applied. Today the new majority proposes to turn the clock back to an era of one-party partisan control over everything in the House from the payroll clerks to the telephone operators. And our reform did not stop there. We created an independent Office of Inspector General to be directed and report to a new bipartisan Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight with equal representation from each party. Today the new majority kills that bipartisan subcommittee and returns to a partisan oversight committee. Is this reform? Why is the new majority rolling back the bold and totally bipartisan approach to managing House support services? One can only speculate that they were only giving lip service to bipartisan professionalism. Now that they are in power, they are abandoning professionalism and grabbing for the spoils of victory. I believe history will judge harshly those who eat their words from the past so easily without any sense of their hypocritical vote to return to the discredited spoils system. I urge my colleagues to defeat this rollback to the bad old days.